Obama's biblically-correct way to do in the GOP:

[damonm]

In the book of Proverbs, Chapter 25, Verses 21-22: "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you."

How wonderfully ironic to destroy the RW with Christian principles, no?

[nomorenomore08]

1. Killing with kindness, I suppose? Obama may be on to just that.

nt

[stopbush]

2. Proverbs isn't Christian, it's Judaic.

[damonm]

3. Picky, picky...

Show me a Fundie who DOESN'T spout the Old Testament, and I'll show you a smart Rethug.

Still hoist on their own petard.

[Cha]

5. It's very ironic..it's the way Christians

should be but never are when they're in the rw sector for some strange reason.

My sister and countless others who are Christians and also Democrats believe in your..

"If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you."

[stopbush]

6. If you really want to blow their minds, mention that Jesus wasn't a Christian.

Not that he really existed.

[chiefofclarinet]

20. According to historians, Jesus of Nazareth did exist

There are many sources from the Roman Empire, both secular and Jewish, that mention the presence of this Yeshua (Hellenized as "Jesus") of Nazareth. There is a letter from Pliny the Younger that mentions this Jesus and his followers in 112 CE. A Roman historian named Tacitus mentions that this Jesus was executed by the prefect Pontius Pilate. The Jewish historian Josephus spent a fair amount of one his books talking about the man Jesus and his followers. And I haven't even mentioned any of the gospels or letters written by disciples or followers of Jesus.

Will I argue with you on whether the "Christ" is some divine being that came down from the heavens? No. Will I argue with you on whether Yeshua of Nazareth existed? Yes.

[stopbush]

30. Wow, you are absolutely wrong on every account in this post.

Do some more research. But first, dump the "historians believe" nonsense when discussing whether or not Jesus existed.

You can start here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#10
to read how "All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims."

This article dismantles the Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny "historical witness for Jesus existence" argument in depth.

There are no contemporaneous writings that mention Jesus. There are no writings whatsoever from Jesus' 12 disciples, probably because none of them could write (and not that they existed, either).

The earliest Gospel - Mark - was written no earlier than 65CE and is the type of allegorical fiction that was popular and common at the time. Matthew and Luke were based on Mark and attempt - unsuccessfully - to add a veneer of historical verisimilitude to the fiction.

Paul's writings date before even Mark was written. Paul mentions not a single event from Jesus' life (as depicted in the Gospels) and treats Jesus as a heaven-bound being who is seen not in the flesh, but exclusively in visions. That's because he didn't have access to the fiction that Mark wrote as it didn't exist when Paul's epistles were penned...and because Paul was in many senses a gnostic.

You've got to do better than this. There is an extremely interesting and compelling story here if one is able to dump the saccharine and fanciful story of the godmen and to view the Jesus fiction as part of a continuum of myth that long predates his supposed advent (see here: http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html).

[uponit7771]

34. There's no proof Cleopatra existed either in that case, anyone with a DNA test confirming her?

[stopbush]

37. Bad analogy. Contemporaneous writings exist that attest to

Cleo's existence. These writings assert she was beloved by her people, not so much by the Romans. She had her image put on coinage and her name put on administrative documents. That's contemporaneous evidence. That's more evidence than exists for Jesus.

Here's a recent article about her from The Smithsonian:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/biography/cleopatra.html

But I appreciate your citing Cleo. Most people who float this argument reference Julius Caesar or George Washington.

Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

[chiefofclarinet]

47. So, do you trust ANY history prior to the printing press?

The whole nature of books prior to mass production is wrought with typos, mistranslations, and subjective additions to texts. If we are to pitch the Christian tradition out the window because of this, well I guess that leaves out the vast majority of ancient literature and histories. Given that the Iliad and the Odyssey are both oral works that probably got mangled throughout the multiple scribes throughout the years doing who knows what to it, I guess you want to pitch them as well.

I think you're fighting an uphill battle on trying to disprove the existence of a man whose teachings have, for better and for worse, influenced Western culture for centuries. I will not deny that he probably was not a major figure in the Roman Empire; he was probably one of many miracle working teachers in the Roman Empire throughout the centuries it existed. However, these teachings survive, whereas most of the rest do not.

As I mentioned in my other post, a vast majority of the Old and New Testament is probably some variation on historical fiction. So, some of the things in the books which seem silly are exaggerations or flat-out lies. But, the messages are what should be gotten out of them. And, dismissing them because they may not be "true" is not the point.

Back to main point that the OP was trying to make. President Obama is following a message from a book he believes is sacred. Just because you happen to think this document should be ignored does not mean that everyone else does.

[stopbush]

49. Let me address your post as sensibly as I can.

Tradition is not fact. For centuries, it was traditional to believe that illness was god's judgment upon people.

Until the invention of the printing press, books and scrolls were hand copied, so of course mistakes happened and embellishments occurred. The printing press enabled mistakes to be mass produced.

As far as oral histories - of course, they are all inaccurate. You know the old saying that the works of Homer weren't written by Homer but by somebody else named Homer. You make a ingenuous argument in citing the Iliad and the Odyssey as examples of histories of questionable veracity and authorship as they originated in the 9th or 8th century BCE, or 900-1000 years before the Gospels were first written, and centuries before written histories by known authors in the ancient world were set down on paper contemporaneously. Even in the ancient world, progress could be made over 900 years. To conflate the questionable authorship of oral works from 9BCE with written histories of definite authorship from circa 30-50CE is poor debating form and a smudging of facts.

Ergo, it brings us to this point: when you move to the realm of contemporaneously authored WRITTEN histories, you enter in a different territory. And here is where the "Jesus existed" arguments really come apart, because historians who lived when Jesus supposedly lived and who WROTE their histories didn't mention Jesus. None of them. No mention of Jesus to be found anywhere by anyone. Philo, for example, lived from 20BCE to 50CE and never mentions Jesus, even though he does mention political conflicts between Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea. Consider:

- Almost all of the works of Philo are preserved
- Some of Philo's writings may have been used by the authors of the Gospels
- Philo's life perfectly spans the supposed life of Jesus
- Philo was a community leader and active in the social movements of his day
- Philo reported on the political and religious events of his day
- Philo provides the only contemporary account of Pontius Pilate in all of ancient literature
- Philo personally knew several of the historical figures in the Jesus story (Philo was a grandson of Herod the Great and knew Herod Agrippa I to whom he personally loaned money)

Surely, Philo would have written about someone like "Jesus Christ" if he had known of him. Philo was a Jew who lived in Alexandria but reported on events throughout the Mediterranean.

And there were many others who lived during that time, travelled in Judea and wrote histories of what happened during those days, Justus of Tiberias, Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Younger, Velleius Paterculus and Valerius Maximus, all of who produced contemporaneous written histories yet never mentioned Jesus. Of course, no one is saying that each and every one of them should have known about Jesus, but the fact remains that none of them wrote about him even if they did know of him.

BTW - I'm not advocating pitching all ancient literature because it isn't historically accurate. It's fine as historical drama. I just ask that we take with a huge grain of salt the Biblical claims of gods and their interventions in the world. One would think that Christians would be OK with this as they seem to have no problem whatsoever discounting the reality of the gods mentioned in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Yep, no problem seeing THOSE gods as pure fiction! But when we get to Jesus, well, he was a REAL god, believe me! Doesn't that cognitive dissonance seem sort of silly when you read it in print?

Two final points: it's not up to me to disprove the existence of Jesus. It's up to someone else to prove his existence. At present, no evidence exists to attest to his existence. As far as him being "one of many miracle-working teachers." Miracle working? Are you kidding me? Miracles?

Last point: you are correct in saying that Jesus' teachings survive while most do not. There's a simple, historical reason for this: starting in about 5CE, the Christians systematically destroyed everything they considered to be heretical to their teachings. The works of Josephus would have probably met the same fate had some scribe not inserted a few lines about Jesus into his Testimonium Flavianum in the 4th century. And, of course, the Christian teachers saved a few ancient works that weren't Xian because they thought the morals presented in these works were instructive.

This isn't to say that there were mass book burnings, but just as the attention and care that Xian scribes gave to the Biblical canon preserved it to this day, not applying the same care to books not considered to be worthy contributed to their eventually being lost to the ages. Systematic destruction in the 5th century took no more effort than to do nothing to preserve that which already existed.

Final-final point: The teachings of other ancients do survive. The difference is that none of them claim to be gods, as does Jesus.

Gotta go.

[provis99]

78. good arguing. I think I'll cut and paste your responses.

the "historicity" of Jesus annoys me to know end. If Christians can argue Jesus existed historically, I guess pagans could argue that Zeus also exists, since they both were written about.

[snake in the grass]

55. Nobody is dismissing...

...the teachings of Jesus because he possibly didn't exist. The message, however, is nothing new (i.e. plagiarized) and for the most part is based on common sense.

Just because many people believe in the mythological person doesn't make him any more real.

[Dr Fate]

51. Unsuccessfully? 2000 years later- I'd say it was successful.

Even many non-believers entertain that he was a historical figure...

[stopbush]

86. You don't take my meaning.

Matthew and Luke attempted to add a sheen of historic truthfulness to their expansion of Mark's Jesus fable by adding real historical beings to the story line. Their intent was to place the birth and life of Jesus into a timeframe that would give the appearance that he lived at a specific time, a time not that long in the past.

But they screwed up.

First, they try to place the year of Jesus' birth. Matthew says, "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king." Herod died in 4BC. Luke says, "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)." Cyrenius (Quirinius ) became governor of Judea in 6CE, ie: 10 years after the death of Herod the Great. In fact, Quirinius replaced Herod Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great.

So Matthew and Luke disagree on the year that Jesus was born by 10 years.

Mark - who was writing an allegorical fiction - knew better than to attempt such a fool's errand and omits any mention of Jesus birth. His Gospel begins with Jesus as a 30-year-old adult.

Then, there's the small matter of the genealogy of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke attempt to trace Jesus' lineage all the way back to King David, but Luke lists 41 generations between David and Jesus while Matthew lists only 27. Moreover, persons in the two genealogies appear in different places. For instance, Luke lists Eliakim as being the 6th generation and living 16 generations before Salatheil, while Matthew has Elakim as the 19th generation and 3 generations AFTER Salathiel. Luke has Eliahim living 36 generations before Jesus was born. Matthew has him living 9 generations before Jesus was born.

Now, one could say "what does it matter what the details are in these conflicting genealogies." Well, the matter is that the only reason the authors of Matthew and Luke bothered to provide such a list was to PROVE Jesus' connection to David through an "accurate" and historic genealogy that no one could possible question. But they blew it, because they each made it up based on hearsay accounts.

Then, there's Herod's supposed slaughter of the innocents. A pure fabrication by Matthew and an event not mentioned in any actual historical record of the time. And besides, if Luke is to be believed, Jesus was born 10 years after Herod died, so Herod wouldn't have been around to slaughter the innocents in an attempt to kill off the newborn "king."

The above is but the tip of the iceberg. But to believe that the Bible is a historic document and that Jesus was a historic figure is to believe that Indiana Jones really existed because he met Adolf Hitler (and even got his autograph) in a movie sequel (the reasoning going like this: Hitler was a real person/Indian Jones met Hitler in a movie/therefore, Indiana Jones was a real person).

It's made up, folks. Made up by men who had no idea that their fanciful writings would someday be subjected to a more-exacting scrutiny than the scrutiny found in the second century in the middle of some hope-forsaken desert.

[Divine Discontent]

65. ah, so you believe in absolutes - well, that's a start. ;)

[stopbush]

39. Question: did Nazareth exist when Jesus supposedly lived?

Consider:

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 2nd century.

Also, consider that the expression 'Jesus of Nazareth' is actually a bad translation of the original Greek 'Jesous o Nazoraios'. More accurately, we should speak of 'Jesus the Nazarene' where Nazarene has a meaning quite unrelated to a place name.

You might want to do some research on what being a "Nazarite" meant.

Interesting article about "Nazareth" here: http://tinyurl.com/9ll9k

[demodonkey]

26. Historically he DID exist, and most likely believed in his own principles, so in that respect....

...yes, Jesus WAS a Christian. (He was also Jewish.)

[stopbush]

32. There's no historic proof that Jesus existed, so please stop saying that.

In fact, a recent discovery may show that the idea of a god resurrecting after being dead 3 days was a fiction that predated Jesus' advent by decades and was grafted onto the Jesus tale:

New York Times
July 6, 2008

Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
By ETHAN BRONNER

JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.

It is written, not engraved, across two neat columns, similar to columns in a Torah. But the stone is broken, and some of the text is faded, meaning that much of what it says is open to debate.

Still, its authenticity has so far faced no challenge, so its role in helping to understand the roots of Christianity in the devastating political crisis faced by the Jews of the time seems likely to increase....

Given the highly charged atmosphere surrounding all Jesus-era artifacts and writings, both in the general public and in the fractured and fiercely competitive scholarly community, as well as the concern over forgery and charlatanism, it will probably be some time before the tablet’s contribution is fully assessed....

Fun stuff!

[ddeclue]

53. You really have no proof that Jesus did NOT exist

and I defy you to prove that conclusively.

It is entirely possible that he did exist.

Whether he was the Son of God is a different matter from whether he existed but science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God either.

Ultimately religion is a matter of FAITH, not provable fact - and you can neither prove NOR disprove it either way so stop trying to tell others what they may or may not say.

:eyes:

[stopbush]

70. Faith is the most overrated commodity in the world.

In many cases, it's a euphemism for ignorance and fear.

The world needs to abandon faith and embrace hope. Hope is generally fact based.

BTW - I'll assume your belief in minotaurs existing is just as strong as your belief in Jesus existing as one can't prove that minotaurs didn't exist either.

[Why Syzygy]

60. Actually, heaping coals was also a sign of charity.

They carried a container on their heads to hold the coals. Someone gave you hot coals to go home and start your fires.

[stopbush]

72. As usual, the Bible wants to have it both ways.

Sounds a lot like a horoscope to me.

[Clio the Leo]

7. The passage is a fundamental Christian belief ....

"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." ~ Romans 12:19-20.

[stopbush]

9. Yeah, notice how the action isn't really meant as a good deed at all but

as an opportunity to piss off your enemy while grinning through your anger?

That's a particular type of evil that Xians fail to recognize for what it is.

Jesus was pretty much a shit head...and don't get me started on Paul...

[damonm]

10. Do you know that there are Christians among DU?

You do yourself no favors with "Jesus was pretty much a shit head" - though I gotta give you Paul.

[Clio the Leo]

13. One day our fellow liberals will realize....

.... that not ALL Christians are closed-minded fundamentalist nut jobs. ;)

I LOVE this forum but the bashing of those of faith that goes on here is perhaps our great hypocrisy. I would NEVER say the kinds of things said about Christians if I were speaking of other specific demographic within our community. It would be wrong for me to do so and I would be banned .... deservedly so.

What's so great about the Democratic party is that it is truly the People's party ... ALL the people .... even those who prefer to worship "something that doesn't exist." If we can understand that and welcome those on the right who are perhaps only on the right because democrats are SOMETIMES Bible haters .... we'd be an even stronger party than we already are.

There is ONE party that truly embraces the Christian spirit of loving your brother as yourself ... and it's not the Republicans.

[EraOfResponsibility]

14. hear hear n/m

[stopbush]

18. Some day, the religious will realize that their demographic is a demographic of choice,

not of birth. Religion isn't gender or race or sexual orientation, ie: things people are born as. It is an intellectual choice, just as it's an intellectual choice to be a supply side economist or a Democrat or a Republican.

There is no historic or scientific basis for religious beliefs. These beliefs are mere opinion. As such, religious beliefs are open to criticism and discussion just as are all other opinions. Religious beliefs are founded in fear, supported by ignorance and tradition. To think that religious beliefs have a carve out that one wouldn't give to political beliefs is shameful.

Should astrology be given the same respect as astronomy? Should alchemy be considered as true and effective as chemistry? Are faith healing and homeopathy to be afforded the same respect as the medical sciences? I think not.

And, BTW, I'm not a Bible hater, but I am an anti-theist. I believe the world would be a better place without the evil superstitions of religion, all religion. The Bible is just an easy target because most people here share a common knowledge of the thing. And it's an easy target because it is a stupid and crass book that embodies the worst thoughts of man with the occasional ray of hope beaming our from its dung heap.

Man has done better than the Bible since it was written. Time to grow up and move on.

[chiefofclarinet]

21. I'm sorry, but you are showing massive ignorance here

Unlike the view taken by most rabid Christians, I view this book as a history of a people. The first half is folklore and historical novellas of the Hebrew people. The second half is the compiled writings of a sect of that Hebrew people, later exploded into what is now Christianity. This is one of the first writings of Western literature. I've seen the first chapters of Genesis in secular literature textbooks.

Saying the Bible has nothing of value just means that you got stuck reading the lame genealogies in Genesis and the boring as hell laws of Leviticus. There is poetry about many topics. There are wise sayings that generally have nothing to do with faith. There is philosophy that tackles the meaning of life in a cruel world. There are brilliant stories about many a topic. The story of David deals with the affects of lust on a great man. The story of Solomon tells a tale showing how a brilliant man can go easily astray. The story of Joseph tells that a spoiled brat can grow up and become a mature, responsible man. Moses' life shows how one bad mistake can turn good. The story of Paul shows that attacking a group without knowing anything about them can make you look like an ignoramus. Whether you are Jewish, Christian, Eastern religions of all sorts, pagan, atheist/agnostic, or anti-religion, these writings are still glorious, even after 2000-3000 years of their existence.

The problem most Christians -- especially the crazy rabid ones -- is that they don't put the books in the historical context. Reading about Jesus, and Paul, and Moses as 21st century Americans makes them seem strange. However, Jesus and Paul were 1st century CE Jews. Moses was a ~10th century Israelite. Neither of these groups share our common American views, especially in the idea of religion and state.

For both the Hebrew people and the Roman state, religion and state were intertwined. According to their beliefs, the state became powerful because some deity smiled upon them and let them become powerful. As silly as this sounds to 21st century Americans, this is one of the firm beliefs that ancient cultures had. Our ideals of separating church from state would be considered highest sacrilage to them.

I will not deny that religion is a choice. And, I am willing to discuss religion as a cultural entity, not as some sort of "sacred cow". But, calling the Bible an evil book or an out of date book will get many people riled. And, having tolerance on those you think are moronic for following it to the letter will cause a whole lot less problems for everyone involved.

[stopbush]

25. I don't have time right now to get into it, but I reject your assertion that

the Bible is comprised of "brilliant stories about many a topic." The examples you cite - David, Solomon, etc - set an archetype for human behavior that can only exist in a world where imaginary gods have say in the course of men's lives. I reject this as a false premise. Therefore, the stories become quite the opposite of what I would consider to be instructive to and illuminative of human behavior. Perhaps they show how unenlightened, racist, misogynists act, but our cultures have evolved beyond the "eye for an eye" ethos of the OT, even if a certain percentage of the population prefers not to embrace this ethos.

And I've got news for you. David, Solomon, Jesus and even Paul are most likely fictional characters. There is absolutely nothing in the historic record that proves that any of them were real people. Most Hebrew scholars now admit this about the OT characters, even if you don't. Seen in this light, these fictional characters have no more sway on how human's should behave than do the characters in the Harry Potter books.

Gotta go.

[ddeclue]

56. And how do you know that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or John Adams existed?

Perhaps it's all a big joke being played on us by our ancestors...

:rofl:

Much in life involves taking things on faith for you simply do not have the necessary time or expertise to prove every aspect of what you know to an absolute level of proof based on your own personal observations and reasoning.

You can't prove it is true to an absolute degree of proof simply because someone wrote something down in a book somewhere so for all you know John Adams is as fictional as Jesus Christ.

Instead of belittling other people's beliefs without any basis other than your own personal belief, just show a little tolerance and allow people to have a different opinion than your own.

Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. ~Mahatma Gandhi

If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all. - Noam Chomsky

[stopbush]

71. Following your "logic," I can't prove that Barack Obama exists.

That's a pretty sorry and shallow defense you've hauled out to defend an evidence-barren belief in Jesus, ie: you can't prove that anyone existed so Jesus must have been just as real as John Adams.

I'm sure you support my belief that sometime in the near future every inch of asphalt in the world will morph into edible pumpkin pie, that you don't find it stupid at all, and that we should immediately throw together a billion-dollar government program to be ready to harvest the pumpkin pie to better feed the world's hungry.

[Clio the Leo]

22. And being an intelligent person you surely know....

..... that you will not change my mind any sooner than I will change yours. ;)

The point is that we respect one another's basic human right to believe in God ... or not to.

That liberty is granted to us at birth, defended for us by the Constitution and respected by good Democrats eveywhere. And BEING good Democrats, we celebrate our diversity and dont bash each other when our opinions differ. ;)

[stopbush]

33. Our equalities and rights are only granted to us at birth because we have the Constitution

which is a document written by men and infused with the ideals of the Enlightenment.

The Constitution was devised and written by "we the people," not gods. It's the Declaration of Independence that says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The DoI goes on to say, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution makes no reference to deities. It is the foundation of our system of governance, not the DoI, which is a foundational document but not a constitutional document. The langauge of the DoI reflects the phraseology of the time, ergo "their Creator" appears (notice, not Jesus, not any specific god, just a Creator. That could be anything...Nature's God, as the DoI says elsewhere). You should know that.

So, these equalities and rights are ours by birth only because the Constitution says so. These liberties are not bestowed by gods, as any quick look at other, non-democratic, god-fearing cultures will show.

If you believe that god has endowed us with these rights, when, exactly, do you believe that endowment began? With Neanderthals? With the humans who lived 150,000 years ago, or 75,000 years ago or, whenever(yes, our Founding Fathers used that phraseology, but I doubt that they'd use it today in a world even more defined by reason than it was in their time).

I'd like an answer to that one. I don't expect it, but I'd appreciate it.

:)

[Clio the Leo]

48. No.....

.... all mankind (all people if you prefer) is entitled to certain basic rights. Afghani militants are not subject to the laws of the US Constitution. We are going to shut down Guantanamo and try those who should be tried not because they are US Citizens, but because we believe, as one of our fundamental philosophies as Americans that ALL people should have a right to trial and not be abused while in the custody of the police. The US Constitution does not require our civil liberties because we fought and won them .... but because we, as human beings, are entitlted to them.

That's a basic concept that should be understood by everyone, religious our not. It was never given by anyone or anything. It just is.

Now I believe that God has given us the liberty to follow him or not without the threat of immediate consequences (Galatians 5), but that's a whole 'nother matter that a. has nothing to do with the matter at hand and b. really has no place on THIS discussion forum. ;)

[stopbush]

50. But what are basic rights? Every country defines them differently.

I believe that it is a basic human right for people to love and marry whoever they wish, but most Christians in this country don't believe that gay people are entitled to that basic right.

And if god gave us the "liberty to follow him, " I would ask you again: WHEN did he give this liberty? To the humans who lived 150,000 years ago? To the Neanderthals? Certainly not to his "enemies" in the OT who were utterly exterminated in his genocidal rages. At least those OT enemies weren't consigned to an eternity of suffering because they weren't chosen by Yahweh. When they were dead, they were dead. Period. No afterlife whatsoever. It was gentle Jesus, meek and mild who ordained that god's enemies would suffer eternal torment. Read your Bible.

Seems clear to me that Yahweh would dispute your claim that "all mankind is entitled to certain basic rights," unless one person's basic right is utter oblivion while another's is eternal bliss...which means the rights aren't at all basic to all people.

Your opinions as expressed above are heavily informed by the progress the world has made in the secular arena, bearing little connection to what is actually written in your holy book of choice.

Why is that?

[tilsammans]

24. Very well said!

Thank you! :applause:

[Common Sense Party]

35. I'd like to hear some of the self-righteous "anti-theists" tell

Martin Luther King that the God he believed in and the Jesus he loved and worshipped was just a fairy tale.

Yeah, Christianity has never done anybody any good.

:sarcasm:

[stopbush]

42. Sure, I'd tell him. He would probably enjoy the debate. No fear there.

Question: do you really believe that MLK wouldn't have championed civil rights the way he did had he not believed in Jesus? King was heavily influenced by Ghandi, not to mention Bayard Rustin, who was openly gay, spouted democratic socialism and was once a member of the Communist Party. I'd have to believe that King was as inspired by Rustin as he was Jesus, yet Rustin's ideas were hardly the stuff of the typical Christian belief system.

Historian and author Susan Jacoby marked the 40th anniversary of Dr King's death the last year with the following:

"As a secularist, I also want to point out that the power of King's moral appeal, while rooted in his own faith, transcended all religions. He welcomed the support of atheists, Jews, and people of every religious and nonreligious background. His closest white friend was a Jewish lawyer--and an atheist. Martin Luther King did not ask for a faith-based dole from the government to appeal to the conscience of a nation. Instead, he made his moral case--and built his movement--from outside government. King understood that morality did not depend on Christianity or any religion. Indeed, the only Americans he wasn't able to reach were the hard-core right-wing, almost entirely Christian, white segregationists whose response to the civil rights movement was to build up a separatist network of white Christian right-wing schools in the South."

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2008/04/martin_luther_king_the_irrepla.html

[Common Sense Party]

59. Who mentioned anything about civil rights?

King had a fervent, solid belief in Jesus Christ. Nothing you can say or do would have changed that.

[stopbush]

73. I did. I simply asked you a question.

I didn't know that questions were restricted in this forum, or that new lines of discussion were frowned upon.

You're the one who brought up Dr King. I'm just trying to expand your original post from a statement into a discussion.

Do you have a problem with that?

[Common Sense Party]

74. Okay...

Question: do you really believe that MLK wouldn't have championed civil rights the way he did had he not believed in Jesus?

No, he wouldn't have.

He might have believed as strongly in the need for radical civil rights change, but he would not have "championed civil rights the way he did" because he would not have been a preacher in the black community, and thus would not have had the trust, the influence, or the notoriety that he had as a minister.

And the fact remains that King's moral appeal WAS "rooted in his own faith."

[stopbush]

75. That's a decent answer. Let me ask a more-specific question:

setting aside whether or not Dr King would have been as effective in championing civil rights were he not a Christian, do you believe he would have been personally less committed to civil rights were he not a believer in Jesus?

In other words, did he need to be a Christian to have the level of commitment to civil rights that he obviously had?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

[Common Sense Party]

80. I believe I already answered that.

No, of course one's religious affiliation (or lack thereof) does not determine one's commitment to covil rights or any other social issue.

[stopbush]

81. Fine. So what was your point in bringing up Dr King in the first place?

See your post #35 in this thread.

[Common Sense Party]

82. It certainly wasn't civil rights.

It was his testimony in "fairy tales" and "nonsense" that you deride.

As you recall, YOU'RE the one who brought up civil rights.

[stopbush]

83. So what was special and different about Dr King outside of his

advocacy for civil rights?

You spoke about Dr King's fervent belief in Jesus and sarcastically wrote, "Yeah, Christianity has never done anybody any good."

Tell me if I'm wrong, but were you not saying that Christianity was the basis of good Dr King did in the cause of civil rights? Or were you saying that he was a good preacher, and that his work on civil rights isn't under consideration in this discussion?

OK, what "good" things did Dr King achieve outside of the area of civil rights that would make one reevaluate a belief that, "Christianity has never done anybody any good?"

BTW - you may be the first person I've ever encountered who purports to divorce civil rights from mention and discussion of Dr. King.

[Common Sense Party]

84. Okay, I'll tell you you're wrong.

Dr. King was, first and foremost, a preacher of Christianity, and a messenger of God's gospel. The hope and faith he inspired in his congregation were invaluable to them, and would have been so even if he hadn't been such a tireless warrior for civil rights. Those were dark times, and for many, the message of light and hope that came from the words of Jesus, delivered from Dr. King's mouth, gave joy to many who could find little joy elsewhere.

You don't like God. I get it. Don't feel you're doing any favors by pissing on those who do.

[stopbush]

85. So, the "good" that Christianity did in Dr King's case was

primarily limited to what good it did for his congregation.

Why didn't you just say that in the first place? And if that was your point, why invoke Dr. King? Any run-of-the-mill preacher would have done. What you describe is basically the job most preachers have, isn't it?

BTW - it's not a matter of me not liking god. I don't believe god exists. I don't believe werewolves exist. My non-belief in werewolves isn't based on me "not liking werewolves." How does one dislike something that doesn't exist?

[PylesMalfunction]

46. Tell it!

:)

[stopbush]

16. I do no favors attacking imaginary beings? So what?

Should I worry about attacking Zeus or Santa as well?

And if you'll give me Paul, why not Jesus who said unless you hated your family you didn't love him (and the word used for "hate" is absolutely clear in the verses in question). If that's not shitheadedness, then what is?

Myth and superstition cries out to be disrespected. I believe anyone is entitled to their beliefs, but crazy beliefs like religion don't deserve respect anymore than do stories of werewolves and fairies.

[LanternWaste]

23. I imagine a lot of people will...

"but crazy beliefs like religion don't deserve respect..."

Or philosophy. Or politics. Or economics. Or literature. Or any of the man-made constructs that appear no where but our own imaginations, yet guide our actions.

But I imagine a lot of people will state that the man-made construct they themselves hold to are better than someone else's man-made constructs, regarldess of whether it's religion or art being held up, and hence many of the world's problems...

[stopbush]

36. Religious beliefs would deserve the same respect as do

philosophy or politics or economics or literature IF religious beliefs were subjected to the same standard of proof as are those other man-made constructs. But they aren't. In fact, the religious demand that their particular beliefs be exempted from the normal standard of proof, choosing to assert the truth of their beliefs, rather than proving them.

I'm not talking here about basic human goodness and fairness, which are the long and hard-won result of our evolution as a species and our development as civilizations informed and bettered through secular ideals (let's face it, the "good" stuff found in religion is nothing more than the outright theft of our better, evolved human nature, its foundation reassigned to some imaginary being who is not much more than a super-father figure of questionable character). I'm talking about the proof for supernatural beings and acts (like resurrections) which form the basis of believing in such fantasies. Not tradition. Not hearsay. Not opinion. Proof.

You want respect, then play on a level playing field. Otherwise, I'll quote Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

[LanternWaste]

40. I'm afraid I missed...

I'm afraid I missed any specific argument you may have with my position other than you believe your imaginary man-made constructs are better than those of many others. That's pretty common, and was my point in the first place.

(P.S. I'm not asking for respect-- irrelevant)

[stopbush]

44. Perhaps your post didn't accurately portray your position.

Man-made constructs are tested, embraced and discarded every day of the week. Doesn't make the ones that survive better than others, just more acceptable to the majority or the zeitgeist.

Religion has also been put to this test. Much of the civilized world is now discarding religion's man-made constructs - most specifically, belief in the supernatural and the fear and self loathing that seems to attend to such beliefs - and is busy embracing man-made constructs AS man-made constructs that we feel we can live by, ie: the kind of constructs that fairly litter our Constitution.

My argument would be that the man-made constructs of The Enlightenment and the Constitution can be demonstrated as being better than the constructs of religious belief. All I ask is that the argument be made on a level playing field with goal posts firmly in place.

[LanternWaste]

45. I'm afraid I don't see anything demonstrably "better"

I'm afraid I don't see anything demonstrably "better" (visa-a-vis religion) in Shakespeare's drama, Henry IV or the Mona Lisa, or from the Platonic subordination of the lower to the higher, or the Stoic pursuit of self-control by internal laws.

They themselves have no Proofs, are put to no empirical, measurable tests, yet maintain and guide the lives of many people to this day.

Again, from where I sit, you are simply stating that one set of man-made imaginary construct is better (more valuable? More efficient? More effective?) than many others. And that, I believe is one of the major causes of human strife-- there is no one man-made construct that I'm aware of that is immune from placing itself on high.


"All I ask is that the argument be made on a level playing field with goal posts firmly in place."

As far as I know, the only goals are to better the human and the individual condition. If that is indeed the case, they all (the human construct) appear to have both a time and a place, and all seem to have a set of answers lacking in the others.


(I'm afraid I have to leave work now and have no internet at home-- but know this, I value your perspective, and you have given me a choice nugget to chew, swallow and slowly digest. I hope that one day we may continue this discussion as it seems (to me) that dialogue of this type is rare unless it contains blatant name calling and back handed compliments, none of which we've engaged in, and for that I thank you....)

[damonm]

29. Interesting....

How you sieze on one thing and seemingly ignore the rest. Makes the same mistake the fundies do, which belies the intellectual integrity that many anti-theists shout about.
And, quite frankly, it's not your anti-theism that riles; it's nothing to me whether you believe or not. It's the arrogance with which you espouse it that is so off-putting. Every bit as much so as the holier-than-thou blatherings of the fundies.
Fact is, you DON'T know any more than I do whether or not any of it is true. You choose not to believe, others do.
That choice is what deserves respect, and if you want others to honor yours, honor theirs.

[stopbush]

31. What I KNOW is that there is no EVIDENCE to believe that any of it is true,

at least if we wish to apply the rules of what constitutes evidence in the modern age in which we live.

In the age of the Bible, all one needed to establish truth was that two witnesses came forward and averred that something happened. We all saw how "truthful" that litmus test was when two false witnesses came forth at Jesus' trial. Sorry, but I'll take the modern standard of evidence over that of the Bronze Age.

BTW - I respect the right of anyone to believe whatever they will, but that doesn't mean that I must respect WHAT they believe as having even a shred of truth to it. I respect any Republican's right to believe that Sarah Palin would make a great president, but I don't have to imagine/pretend/respect that there is any truth to that belief. Religion is no different. Neither is science, math or the price of admission to Disneyland. There's facts, then there's fantasy.

Why don't Christians get this simple truth? If you want to assert that your beliefs have truth, then offer some proof beyond tradition, hearsay and opinion. Surely, you would demand the same level of proof from anyone asserting that Zeus currently ruled the world, or that fairies are responsible for whether or not people make it safely across the street.

I'll tell you why you think your beliefs are valid while belief in Zeus isn't: fear. Fear of eternal damnation. The big ol' stick that Jesus holds over your head that says, "believe in me OR ELSE."

Sad. Time to put away childish things, as St Paul once said.

[riqster]

38. Attacking your fellow Dems and Progressives for their beliefs is disrespectful

It helps no one, does no good, so why act in such a blatantly rude and obnoxious manner?

We have work to do here. Please stop pissing off your fellow workers.

[stopbush]

43. Blatantly rude? Again, religion gets a special carve out because ????

And I'm not attacking anybody FOR their beliefs, I'm attacking the beliefs as being the stuff of fantasy. There's a difference.

I won't attack you for believing John McCain would have been a better president than Obama, but I'll attack such a belief as being provably risible. If you were to aver that evolutionary theory was BS and that creationism/ID were just as or more valid to explain life on Earth would it be rude of me to knock down your arguments as forcefully as I could?

I wonder if people would give religion such a special carve out from normal discourse if the threat of eternal damnation wasn't hanging in the air.

[ddeclue]

54. Well you really can NOT prove that anything that they believe is a "fantasy"

so grow up and learn to be tolerant of other people's beliefs already.

Science can not prove NOR disprove the existence of God.

If you choose NOT to believe that is certainly your choice and we respect that but do return the favor and respect OTHERS beliefs as well.

:eyes:

[stopbush]

66. Sorry, but religious beliefs demand the term fantasy be applied

as there is no proof and you can't prove a negative.

For most of history and prehistory, manned flight was a fantasy. Then, we figured it out and it's become commonplace. Same with landing on the moon - a fantasy until we knew it could happen. It then moved from a possibility to a reality. Labeling something as a fantasy doesn't mean it will be so forever. It's simply an indicator of what the lack of evidence would seem to indicate to a high level of probability at this point in time.

Science is not interested in proving or disproving whether gods exist. That's a red herring. In fact, science doesn't believe in absolutes. That's the stock in trade of religion. Science only proves this or that to a very high degree of probability, often to the point of statistical insignificance. Looked at objectively, I'd say the disproof of god is solidly in that category. If you prefer a subjective view of god's existence, you're entitled to it. But that doesn't mean I need to suppress my incredulity at your belief.

Let's put it this way: you can choose not to believe that faeries live under your bed. You can choose to believe that fairies do live under your bed. At present, there is no evidence to support the existence of fairies, so whether they live under your bed or not is pretty much irrelevant. Belief in god is on the same level as belief in fairies.

Why is that so difficult to admit? Are you saying that there's more reason to believe in god than fairies? If so, why?

Strange how you ask me to grow up while defending a belief in invisible, imaginary beings for which there is no proof whatsoever.

[ddeclue]

67. No you can't prove your case that it is indeed a fantasy.

Prove there is no God.

You can't even prove there was no Jesus.

Hey you can't really prove there isn't a Santa Claus, an Easter Bunny or a Tooth Fairy for that matter.

You have no credibility to be telling other people what they can't believe in until you can disprove their beliefs - and sorry you KNOW you simply can't do it.

You are trying to slam other people for their beliefs instead of being tolerant of them and you deserve to be pushed back against.

Grow up and be tolerant.

:eyes:

[stopbush]

69. Go ahead and base your life on belief in the Tooth Fairy.

Hell, go ahead and pass legislation based on belief in Toothie. Just don't be surprised when there's push back and uncontrollable laughter from others.

Again, demanding that anyone prove a negative is not exactly a strong debating position. It's childish, illogical and easily dismissed.

Belief in gods comes as close to what we presently define as a fantasy as anything else I can think of, as in:

"the free play of creative imagination, a chimerical or fantastic notion, the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need."

[stopbush]

17. dupe

[SidneyCarton]

27. A jaundiced eye sees everything in a particular tint...

Could it be that the argument here is that one should be kind to one's enemies in the hopes that they will be reciprocally kind, and if not, their bad behavior is their problem to which they will answer to the God that you do not believe in anyway. This is an argument for behavior, if you are cruel to others, then you have some degree of responsibility for their cruel responses, because you can be said to have provoked them. If, on the other hand, you treat a person with kindness and respect and they still respond with cruelty and disrespect, then their bad attitude can be said to be their problem, because it is unprovoked. In essence, the arguement here is to look to your own salvation, treat people in the way that they all ought to be treated (and that hopefully we would prefer to be treated ourselves) and leave the rest to justice.

[phleshdef]

4. He seems to have a pretty solid "Do unto others" and "Turn the other cheek" approach as well.

[Clio the Leo]

8. Romans 12 is one of my favorite passages of scripture....

.... and I have found those last few verses to be HIGHLY effective. ;)

In other words, "Be nice to those that hate you, it will piss them off even more." :)

[madamesilverspurs]

11. Okay, I'm reaching back almost 30 years here, but

this passage came up in a study group I was in way back when. Specifically discussed was the apparent conflict in intent. Someone who had done significant research in biblical history (a la Edersheim, etc.) said that the passage was referencing the emphasis on hospitality that was a cross-cultural imperative in a part of the world that could be very inhospitable. In specific, if your neighbor returned to his home and found that his fire had gone out you were obliged to lend him some hot coals to refire his hearth; apparently the coals were placed in a bowl or some other vessel which was then carried home on top of the head. In other words, it isn't about my enemy's behavior, it's about mine.

[mythyc]

19. if i recall correctly, burning embers were also used in the ancient world to

to help with split ends. another interpretation, then, would read making your enemy look purtier. you don't mess with the zohan :P

[cooolandrew]

12. Well it might at least tweek their conscience. I think it's also a genuine invite Barack has >

previously said it's lonely at the top despite having huge disagreements they are his former co-workers. Even in everyday life we have to co-operate with folks with disagree with in our workplace. As much as some would like it to be gladiators in congress it pretty much works like most workplaces you forget your differences and go for a drink at the end of the day.

[cooolandrew]

15. I always put God in the terms of good it seems to tranlate well for me.>

Good is everywhere, good has always been and always will be, good will burn coals into their head.

[avaistheone1]

28. "Thou shalt not kill."

I hope Obama pays attention to that commandment, and doesn't go into Afghanistan.

[PurityOfEssence]

41. More joy from the "good" book: fuck your adversaries over, and daddy will love you

Must we have yet more religion in our politics?

[ddeclue]

57. The bible isn't a single book - it's 40 something books

depending on whether you are Catholic or Protestant the number varies.

Bible comes from the Greek "biblios" which doesn't mean book but rather library.

Naturally since these books were written across many centuries there are diverging points of view amongst the authors - the Old Testament really isn't about Christianity at all so trying to cite it to bash Christians is every bit as bad as the wing-nut types who use it to justify their own non Christian behaviors.

It's really very simple: Love your neighbor as yourself.

Doug D.

[Common Sense Party]

58. 66 books in the KJV

A few more with the Apocrypha

[PurityOfEssence]

62. Um...it's common usage, and deliberately colloquial

Aincha never seen no western movin' pictures? They's always sayin' how they's now gonna read from the "good book".

The scriptures are fables, rules, parables, rituals and all sorts of things, but one thing they aren't is uniformly sweet and wonderful. Those who are in love with their faith to the degree that they are incapable or unwilling to see some of the uglinesses are a potential danger to themselves and the rest of us. Depending on how one picks and chooses, one can use the Old Testament as a justification for slavery, killing misbehaving youths, subjugating women and all sorts of other unsavory pursuits.

The tendency is that if it brings one warmth and happiness, the brutish parts are just glossed over or denied. Somehow, it's then a surprise when wackos seize upon various passages to justify violence and other assorted hobbies. Other religions are no better, and some are demonstrably worse, but the blinkered and self-congratulatory denial of many of the faithful is consistent; many Muslims will deny up and down that there's proselytizing, intolerant, domineering violence in the Koran. Some will flatly state that women are equal in Islam, and when asked how many husbands they're allowed, there is no admission of inconsistency.

It's not all good. None of them are. The need to define them as such underline one of the greatest evils of most organized religion: the craving for certainty and the attendant fear and hatred of thinking and nuance. They all have inherent xenophobia and a latent, anti-democratic expectation for an aristocratic special treatment, if not outright political and social dominance.

Actually, I believe it means "books" in Greek, not "library". Library connotes a vast and comprehensive collection, whereas the scriptures, although they are often bandied about as the answers to everything, are rather narrow in scope. There's not much of the practical engineering, how-to, art and such that one would find in even a modest library.

Remember: that which may bring you joy may be considered intrusive and dangerous to others, and there's a hell of a lot in the package deal than just the golden rule.

[ddeclue]

68. But your point is a deliberate straw-man

You are deliberately creating a straw man by IGNORING the fact that they are indeed SEPARATE BOOKS - SEPARATE WORKS by holding the authors of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) responsible for the works of other authors to which they obviously have no responsibility who lived many centuries before them.

The Old Testament says "an eye for an eye" - the New says "turn the other cheek".

Each book has to be judged on its OWN not denigrated for the writing of a previous author.

:eyes:

[PurityOfEssence]

76. balderdash

My stance is that the Bible, taken as a whole, is a mishmash of some good and a lot of primitive, abusive, subservient rubbish. Those who want to dismiss the uglinesses are no better than Stalinists who glory in the public works, social safety net, education achievements and technological advances, but don't want to take responsibility for the murders, slave-labor, torture and aggressive wars of conquest. When one signs on with a group, one is responsible for the actions of the group.

Religion is a package deal. If you join the faith, you're at least a fellow-traveler and enabler of the parts you may not like. Religions are political entities, and always have been: they're a method for controlling (or helping, in a kinder sense) the people. God says "don't eat pork" ('cuz we're too primitive to figure out how to cook it properly), God says "no shellfish" ('cuz our sewage makes them dangerous), God says "no homos" ('cuz we need to reproduce and have a new generation of young men to fight off the assholes from over the hills and go off and conquer the occasional weaklings who have things we want). Get it? It's politics.

This kind of a la carte self-justification is one of the more irritating things about religion. All good is the work of god, all bad done in religion's name is that of fiends and scalawags. Hitler wasn't REALLY a Christian. God is good. La la la la la.

I'm a Liberal Democrat. As such, I'm aware that I'll be tarred as indecisive, tax-and-spendy, soft on crime, and a host of other ills. I don't AGREE with those assessments, but they come with the meal.

Anyone who's going to hold Christianity up as "good" needs to take responsibility for the wicked, nasty and primitive crap interlaced with some of the undeniable niceties.

You can judge them as you please. I see the Bible as a document of assumptions that Christians agree is correct, if not literally, then more-or-less so. If individuals want to repudiate parts of it, that's fine, but then they have to grant others the nuances they demand themselves.

Religion simply doesn't play fair. Christianity also holds to the Old Testament, so if one wants to play self-congratulatory games of being "fer" the "good" and "agin" the "bad", then one doesn't have a leg to stand on when an obvious heretic takes issues with some of the "bad" stuff.

Where the books came from is more or less irrelevant; the party line is that those tomes, piled together into that one volume, IS THE WORD.

[stopbush]

77. Your posts concedes that the books of the Bible were authored by men, not god.

Ergo, the authority of the omnipotent & omniscient god inspiring its pages is removed, and the Bible - OT & NT alike - enters into the canon of pure fiction. It's Aesop's fables in a different guise.

I'm glad we agree on this.

[stopbush]

79. But the 4 Gospels are rife with allusiuons to and quotations from the OT.

Whole sections of Mark are based on Hosea, Amos and other books of the OT. Matthew and Luke also cite the OT. John's Gospel is a piss-poor attempt to retrofit the OT prophecies (many of them which weren't actual prophecies, but I digress) onto the newly minted Jesus fiction.

Contrary to your assertions, the writers of the Gospels expected their readers to see the corollaries between their new writings and the books of the OT. Virtually every detail of Jesus' life is pulled from the OT. The telling of the Jesus story is positioned as a fulfillment of prophecy, so it's only natural that the Gospel writers would reference the works of these earlier authors.

Being human, the Gospel writers often wrongly attribute the OT verses they cite to prop up the Jesus fiction as a fulfillment of prophecy, but that's a fun exercise in discovering Biblical errors best left for another time.

BTW - as far as "turn the other cheek," the so-called ethic of reciprocity (ie: The Golden Rule) and variations upon it are indeed found in the OT ("Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." — Leviticus 19:1) as well as most of the world's religions. Even Confucius had a version of the Golden Rule. The Greeks had similar tenets as well. The Bhagavad Gita (which dates from 6-5 BCE, ie: six centuries before the advent of Christ) says "That one I love who is incapable of ill will, And returns love for hatred."

Returning love for hatred is another way of saying "turn the other cheek."

To aver that Jesus and the NT were advancing a new philosophy of tolerance/love is historically absurd.

And why is it always left to the atheists to instruct the Christians on what is to be found in their holy book?

[trekbiker]

52. I dont get it;....

is the food or drink poisoned? or is this some sort of subtle subterfuge whereby you lull your enemy into complacency so you can stick it to him later?

how does feeding your enemy equate to heaping burning coals on his head? will the imaginary cloud being dump magical burning coals on his head and deliver us from the GOP?

ok, lets say I've just fed and quenched the thirst of my enemy (GOP) and he gets up and rams his sword up my ass... am I missing something here?? is this just more superstitious biblical babel??

I understand that Obama is playing chess and the GOP is hopelessly stuck with checkers and thier failed ideology. just keep the biblical fairytale BS out of it

[Why Syzygy]

61. It's due to

carnal man projecting his own evil onto God (or fellow man).

Heaping coals was a sign of charity.

They carried a container on their heads to hold the coals.
Someone gave them hot coals to go home and start their fires.

[Why Syzygy]

63. Another alternate view

21, 22. (Compare Mt 5:44; Ro 12:20). As metals are melted by heaping coals upon them, so is the heart softened by kindness.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/jamieson/jfb.x.xx.xxvi.html

[Eryemil]

64. See how well that worked for the Jews. FUCK THAT n|t